[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3370-S3373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 INTERNATIONALISM OR ISOLATIONISM--A CHOICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF 
                            AMERICAN LEADERS

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in the opening words of a major foreign 
policy address last evening, President Clinton said that ``we live in a 
moment of hope.''
  Mr. President, I concur with that sentiment. With the demise of the 
cold war, with the nascent friendship between the United States and 
Russia, and with the emergence of democratic trends across the globe, 
the world is experiencing a realignment in the fundamental relationship 
between states. It is, as the President suggests, a time of 
extraordinary opportunity for the United States.
  I commend President Clinton for his rejection of an inward-looking 
course, and endorse his ambitious call to support international 
peacekeeping, to reduce the nuclear threat by extending indefinitely 
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and implementing other arms 
control agreements, and to be an aggressive player in the global 
economy. I also ask unanimous consent that the President's speech be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The present circumstances call to mind the watershed period after 
World War II. Then, as now, the United States faced a stark challenge: 
whether to assume the mantle of international leadership and become 
engaged in the establishment of a new diplomatic order, or whether to 
retreat into isolation, comfortably sheltered by two great oceans from 
the turbulent world of European balance of power politics.
  Due to the courage and foresight of our political leadership--
visionaries such as Harry Truman, George Marshall, Dean Acheson, and 
Arthur Vandenberg--America chartered a firm course of internationalism, 
guided by the principle of containment of the Soviet Union. Recognizing 
the shortsightedness of isolationism, the United States chose not to 
repeat the mistakes it made in ignoring the League of Nations, and 
became a driving force behind and host of the new United Nations. Our 
decisions then, and in the ensuing decades, solidified our role as the 
preeminent power in world affairs.
  The changes we have witnessed in the past 6 years are the direct 
result of the policies we, along with our allies, conceived, refined, 
and implemented during the course of the cold war. None of these 
changes, however, could have occurred without American leadership and 
engagement.
  I am therefore troubled by the emerging desire, expressed both in 
Congress and in public fora across the Nation, to retreat from our 
international commitments and obligations. And nowhere is this 
sentiment more dangerous and ill-conceived than in the emerging 
obsession with the United Nations.
  I am now and have been an ardent supporter of the United
   Nations since 1945, when I was part of the International Secretariat 
of the San Francisco Conference that drew up the U.N. Charter. In the 
years since then, I have tried to help to make the United Nations 
become the effective world organization--the very symbol of the 
international community of nations--that was envisioned in the charter.

  I am not so naive as to profess that the United Nations has always 
lived up to its potential. The United States-Soviet rivalry tended at 
times to hamstring the Security Council, and U.N. history occasionally 
has been interspersed with examples of waste and ineffectiveness. But 
for every example of failure, I can think of numerous countervailing 
examples of success--Cambodia, El Salvador, Namibia, and countless 
others. And now that we are entering a new era of cooperation with 
Russia, the Security Council harbors even greater promise for becoming 
a first-rate arbiter of international conflict and discord. U.N. 
peacekeeping has helped to serve American interests in the Middle East, 
in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia. And I know that there will be 
situations in the future where we will rely on the U.N. peacekeepers to 
support our foreign policy aims.
  Now that we no longer are forced to dedicate such a sizable 
proportion of our resources to the containment of Russia, we can see 
before us an entire new range of opportunity for international 
cooperation and prosperity. But the growth industries and salient 
political issues of the future--be they in telecommunications, the 
exchange of information, the flow of capital, the sound use of our 
environmental resources, or the prevention of the proliferation of 
conventional and unconventional arms--are heading in a direction that 
transcends national boundaries. If the United States is to keep pace, 
it cannot afford to slide back into inward-looking detachment.
  In his address, the President set out a challenging and crucially 
important arms control agenda. I was quite pleased to note the high 
priority he attaches to achieving the indefinite extension of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty at the conference of the parties beginning next 
month. The President has decided to underscore the importance he 
attaches to the preservation of international barriers to nuclear 
proliferation by asking Vice President Gore to lead our delegation. The 
Vice President will be ably supported by Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr., 
and other experts from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
  The President also reaffirmed his commitment to the quick completion 
of a complete ban on nuclear testing. Substantial progress has been 
made in the negotiations. With a dedicated effort, the remaining 
stumbling blocks can be overcome.
  I was pleased also that the President attaches high priority to the 
ratification of the START II Treaty. The START I and START II effort is 
truly bipartisan, spanning three administrations. Under the leadership 
of Senator Helms and Senator Lugar, the Committee on Foreign Relations 
is in the
 process of wrapping up hearings started in the last Congress under my 
chairmanship.

  In addition to these priorities, the President told his audience:

       There are other critical tasks we also face if we want to 
     make every American more secure, including winning Senate 
     ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, negotiating 
     legally binding measures to strengthen the Biological and 
     Toxin Weapons Convention, clarifying the ABM Treaty so as to 
     secure its viability while permitting highly effective 
     defenses against theater missile attacks, continuing to 
     support regional arms control efforts in the Middle East and 
     elsewhere, and pushing for the ratification of conventional 
     weapons which, among other things, would help us to reduce 
     the suffering caused by the tens of millions of antipersonnel 
     mines. * * *

  The President understands that this agenda is both far-reaching and 
imperative. He said:

       Now, in this year of decision, our ambition for the future 
     must be even more ambitious. If our people are to know real 
     lasting security, we have to redouble our arms control, 
     nonproliferation and antiterrorism efforts. We have to do 
     everything we can to avoid living with the 21st century 
     version of fallout shelters and duck-and-cover exercises to 
     prevent another World Trade Center tragedy.

  Mr. President, it is very important to understand that many aspects 
of arms control and nonproliferation are truly bipartisan. To be sure, 
Senators have and have had disagreements. Nonetheless, working together 
in a bipartisan fashion, we have moved steadily forward. During my 
chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations, we were able to 
craft bipartisan bills, with the strong involvement of Senator Glenn 
and other Members, imposing effective sanctions against both nations 
and individuals engaged in reprehensible activities involving chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons-related activities.
  [[Page S3371]] It is indicative of the bipartisan nature of our arms 
control efforts that every treaty the committee and the Senate approved 
while I was privileged to be chairman won overwhelming support in the 
end. We were careful in every instance to resolve all legitimate 
concerns along the way to committee and floor consideration, and there 
was never a question with any of the arms control treaties voted out--
including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the 
Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, 
the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, and the START II Treaty--that 
the approval would be well beyond the required two-thirds support.
  Mr. President, I am gratified that President Clinton has embraced an 
ambitious agenda that will merit continued bipartisan support. He will 
thus be able to bring to fruition major initiatives of the Bush 
administration, as well as his own. The end result will assuredly be a 
safer, more stable world.
  It is important to understand that these efforts represent a 
continuum in arms control that covers much of the post-World War II 
period. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy initiated the first efforts 
to curb nuclear testing, and each succeeding administration has built 
on the successes of its predecessors.
  Mr. President, I wish that I could say that the major challenges of 
arms control and nonproliferation are behind us. Despite the many 
successes, the challenges ahead are formidable. I am extremely pleased 
that the President is able and willing to face these challenges. I 
trust that the Congress will continue a truly bipartisan effort to 
control, reduce, and even eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. President, we stand at the cross-roads of history. The tenor of 
current political discourse--focused as it is on disengagement, 
withdrawal, and neoisolationism--suggests we are heading toward a 
colossal error in judgment. Those who seek to retreat into a Fortress 
America offer no constructive suggestion for filling the vacuum to be 
left by America's withdrawal. We would lose our political and moral 
authority, our ability to exercise influence in matters vital to our 
interests, and do grave harm to our standing as one of the greatest 
powers in history.
  In his speech last night, President Clinton mentioned one of the most 
distinguished members ever to have served in this body--Arthur 
Vandenberg--who advanced the principle that politics should stop at the 
waters edge. But many of our interests, Mr. President, only begin 
there. I stand behind President Clinton's conviction that America can 
prosper in the next century only through international engagement and 
the assertion of leadership.
  There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  [From the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Mar. 1, 1995]

  Remarks by the President to the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom 
                           Policy Conference

       The President. To Tricia and John Taylor, and all the 
     people from the Nixon Center; our distinguished guests from 
     Germany and from Russia; of course, to Henry Kissinger--I was 
     thinking when he said we both spoke with accents, judging 
     from the results of the last election, his native country is 
     still claiming him more than mine is claiming me. (Laughter.) 
     But I'm a big one for reconciliation. (Laughter.) And there's 
     plenty of time to achieve it.
       I am honored to be here tonight. Just a month before he 
     passed away, President Nixon wrote me the last letter I 
     received from him about his last trip to Russia. I told some 
     people at the time that it was the best piece of foreign 
     policy writing I had received, which angered my staff but 
     happened to be the truth. (Laughter.) And as with all of our 
     correspondence and conversations, I was struck by the rigor 
     of his analysis, the energy of his convictions, and the 
     wisdom of the practical suggestions that he made to me.
       But more than the specifics of the letter, which basically 
     argued for the imperative of the United States continuing to 
     support political and economic reform in Russia, I was moved 
     by the letter's larger message--a message that ran throughout 
     Richard Nixon's entire public life and all of his prolific 
     writings. President Nixon believed deeply that the United 
     States simply could not be strong at home unless we were 
     strong and prepared to lead abroad.
       And that made a big impression on me. When I was running 
     for President in 1992, even though there was this little 
     sticker up on the wall of my campaign headquarters that said, 
     ``It's the economy, stupid,'' I always said in every speech 
     that we had to have two objectives. We had to restore the 
     American Dream for all of our people, but we also had to make 
     sure that we move into
      the next century still the strongest nation in the world, 
     and the world's greatest force for peace and freedom and 
     democracy.
       Tonight I want to talk about the vital tradition of 
     American leadership and our responsibilities, those which 
     Henry Kissinger mentioned and those which President Nixon 
     recognized so well. Our mission especially I want to 
     discuss--to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
       Today if we are going to be strong at home and lead abroad, 
     we have to overcome what we all recognize I think is a 
     dangerous and growing temptation here in our own land to 
     focus solely on the problems we face here in America. I want 
     to focus on the problems we face here in America. I've tried 
     to do it for the last two years. I look forward to working 
     with this new Republican-led Congress in the next two. But 
     not solely.
       There is a struggle now going on between those of us who 
     want to carry on the tradition of American leadership and 
     those who would advocate a new form of American isolationism. 
     A struggle which cuts curiously across both party and 
     ideological lines. If we're going to continue to improve the 
     security and prosperity of all our people, then the tradition 
     of American leadership must prevail.
       We live in a moment of hope. We all know that. The 
     implosion of communism and the explosion of the global 
     economy have brought new freedoms to countries on every 
     continent. Free markets are on the rise. Democracy is 
     ascendant. The slogan says, ``after victory.'' Today, more 
     than ever before, people across the globe do have the 
     opportunity to reach their God-given potential. And because 
     they do, Americans have new opportunities to reach theirs as 
     well.
       At the same time, the post-Cold War world has revealed a 
     whole web of problems that defy quick or painless solutions--
     aggression of rogue states, transnational threats like 
     overpopulation and environmental degradation, terrible ethnic 
     conflicts and economic dislocation. But at the heart of all 
     these complex challenges, I believe, lies an age-old battle--
     for power over human lives. The battle between the forces of 
     freedom and tyranny, tolerance and repression, hope and fear. 
     The same idea that was under attack by fascism and then by 
     communism remains under attack today in different ways all 
     across the world--the idea of the open society of free 
     people.
       American leadership is necessary for the tide of history to 
     keep running our way, and for our children to have the future 
     they deserve. Yet, there are some who would choose escapism 
     over engagement. The new isolationists oppose our efforts to 
     expand free trade through GATT or NAFTA through APEC and the 
     Summit of the Americas. They reject our conviction that 
     democracy must be nurtured with investment and support, a 
     conviction that we are acting on from the former Soviet Union 
     to South Africa. And some of them, being hypocritical, saying 
     that we must trumpet the rhetoric of American strength; and 
     then at the same time, they argue against the resources we 
     need to bring stability to the Persian Gulf or to restore 
     democracy to Haiti, or to control the spread of drugs and 
     organized crime around the world, or even to meet our most 
     elemental obligations to the United Nations and its 
     peacekeeping work.
       The new isolationists both on the left and the right would 
     radically revise the fundamentals of our foreign policy that 
     have earned bipartisan support since the end of World War II. 
     They would eliminate any meaningful role for the United 
     Nations which has achieved, for all of its problems, real 
     progress around the world, from the Middle East to Africa. 
     They would deny resources to our peacekeepers and even to our 
     troops, and, instead, squander them on Star Wars. And they 
     would refuse aid to the fledgling democracies and to all 
     those fighting poverty and environmental problems that can 
     literally destroy hopes for a more democratic, more 
     prosperous, more safe world.
       The new isolationists are wrong. They would have us face 
     the future alone. Their approach would weaken this country, 
     and generated build into a tidal wave. (Applause.)
       If we withdraw from the world today, mark my words, we'll 
     have to contend with the consequences of our neglect tomorrow 
     and tomorrow and tomorrow. This is a moment of decision for 
     all of us without regard to our party, our background or our 
     accent. This is a moment of decision.
       The extraordinary trend toward democracy and free markets 
     is not inevitable. And as we have seen recently, it will not 
     proceed easily in an even, uninterrupted course. This is hard 
     work. And at the very time when more and more countries than 
     ever before are working to establish or shore up their own 
     freedom in their fragile democracies, they look to us for 
     support. At this time, the new isolationists must not be 
     allowed to pull America out of the game after just a few 
     hours of debate because there is a modest price attached to 
     our leadership. (Applause.)
       We know now, as President Nixon recognized, that there must 
     also be limits to 
     [[Page S3372]] America's involvement in the world's 
     problems--limits imposed by clear-headed evaluation of our 
     fundamental interests. We cannot be the world's policeman; we 
     cannot become involved in every problem we really care about. 
     But the choice we make must be rooted in the conviction that 
     America cannot walk away from its interests or its 
     responsibilities.
       That's why, from our first day in office, this 
     administration has chosen to reach out, not retreat. From our 
     efforts to open markets for America to support democracy 
     around the world, to reduce the threat posed by devastating 
     weapons and terrorists, to maintaining the most effective 
     fighting force in the world, we have worked to seize the 
     opportunities and meet the obligations of this moment.
       None of this could have happened without a coalition of 
     realists--people in both Houses of Congress and, importantly, 
     people from both parties; people from coast to coast in our 
     towns and cities and communities who know that the wealth and 
     well-being of the United States depends upon our leadership 
     abroad. Even the early leaders of our republic who went to 
     great pains to avoid involvement in great power conflicts 
     recognize not only the potential benefits, but the absolute 
     necessity of engaging with the world.
       Before Abraham Lincoln was elected President, our farmers 
     were selling their crops overseas, we had dispatched the 
     trade mission all the way to Japan trying to open new 
     markets--some problems don't go away--(laughter)--and our 
     Navy had already sailed every ocean. By the dawn of this 
     century, our growing political and economic power already 
     imposed a special duty on America to lead; a duty that was 
     crystallized in our involvement in World War I. But after 
     that war, we and the other great powers abandoned our 
     responsibilities and the forces of tyranny and hatred filled 
     the vacuum, as is well-known.
       After the second world war, our wise leaders did not repeat 
     that mistake. With the dawn of the Nuclear Age and the Cold 
     War, and with the economies of Europe and Japan in shambles, 
     President Truman persuaded an uncertain and weary nation, 
     yearning to shift its energies from the front lines to the 
     home front, to lead the world again.
       A remarkable generation of Americans created and sustained 
     alliances and institutions--the Marshall Plan, NATO, the 
     United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF--the things that 
     brought half a century of security and prosperity to America, 
     to Europe, to Japan and to other countries all around the 
     world. Those efforts and the special resolve and military 
     strength of our own nation held tyranny in check until the 
     power of democracy, the failures of communism, and the heroic 
     determination of people to be free, consigned the Cold War to 
     history.
       Those successes would not have been possible without a 
     strong, bipartisan commitment to American's leadership.
       Senator Arthur Vandenburg's call to unite our official 
     voice at the water's edge joined Republicans to Truman's 
     doctrine. His impact was all the more powerful for his own 
     past as an isolationist. But as Vandenburg himself said, 
     Pearl Harbor ended isolationism for any realist.
       Today, it is Vandenburg's spirit that should drive our 
     foreign policy and our politics. The practical determination 
     of Senators Nunn and Lugar to help Russia reduce its nuclear 
     arsenal safely and securely; the support from Speaker 
     Gingrich and Leader Gephardt, from Chairman Livingston and 
     Representative Obey for aid to Russia and the newly-
     independent states; the work of Senators Hatfield, Leahy and 
     McConnell, and Chairman Gilman, and Representative Hamilton 
     for peace in the Middle East; the efforts of Senator Warner 
     to restructure our intelligence--all these provide strong 
     evidence of the continuing benefits and vitality of 
     leadership with bipartisanship.
       If we continue to lead abroad and work together at home, we 
     can take advantage of these turbulent times. But if we 
     retreat, we risk squandering all these opportunity and 
     abandoning our obligations which others have entrusted to us 
     and paid a very dear price to bring to us in this moment in 
     history.
       I know that the choice to go forward in a lot of these 
     areas is not easy in democracies at this time. Many of the 
     decisions that America's leaders have to make are not popular 
     when they're made. But imagine the alternative. Imagine, for 
     example, the tariffs and barriers that would still cripple 
     the world trading system for years into the future if 
     internationalists coming together across party lines had not 
     passed GATT and NAFTA. Imagine what the Persian Gulf region 
     would look like today if the United States had not stepped up 
     with its allies to stop Iraqi aggression. Imagine the ongoing 
     reign of terror and the flood of refugees at our borders had 
     we not helped to give democracy a second chance in Haiti. 
     Imagine the chaos that might have ensued if we had not moved 
     to help stabilize Mexico's economy. In each case, there was 
     substantial and sometimes overwhelming majority opinion 
     against what needed to be done at the moment. But because we 
     did it, the world has a better chance at peace and freedom. 
     (Applause.)
       But above all now, I ask you to imagine the dangers that 
     our children and grandchildren, even after the Cold War is 
     over, still can face if we do not do everything we can to 
     reduce the threat of nuclear arms, to curb the terrible 
     chemical and biological weapons spreading around the world, 
     to counter the terrorists and criminals who would put these 
     weapons into the service of evil.
       As Arthur Vandenburg asked at the dawn of the Nuclear Age, 
     after a German V-1 attack had left London in flames and its
      people in fear, ``How can there be isolation when men can 
     devise weapons like that?''
       President Nixon understood the wisdom of those words. His 
     life spanned an era of stunning increases in humankind's 
     destructive capacity, from the biplane to ballistic missiles, 
     from mustard gas to mushroom clouds. He knew that the Atomic 
     Age could never be won, but could be lost. On any list of his 
     foreign policy accomplishments, the giant steps he took 
     toward reducing the nuclear threat must stand among his 
     greatest achievement. As President, I have acted on that same 
     imperative.
       Over the past two years, the United States has made real 
     progress in lifting the threat of nuclear weapons. Now, in 
     1995, we face a year of particular decision in this era--a 
     year in which the United States will pursue the most 
     ambitious agenda to dismantle and fight the spread of weapons 
     of mass destruction since the atom was split.
       We know that ours is an enormously complex and difficult 
     challenge. There is no single policy, no silver bullet, that 
     will prevent or reverse the spread of weapons of mass 
     destruction. But we have no more important task. Arms control 
     makes us not only safer, it makes us stronger. It is a source 
     of strength. It is one of the most effective insurance 
     policies we can write for the future of our children.
       Our administration has focused on two distinct, but closely 
     connected areas--decreasing and dismantling existing weapons, 
     and preventing nations or groups from acquiring weapons of 
     mass destruction, and the means to deliver them. We've made 
     progress on both fronts.
       As the result of an agreement President Yeltsin and I 
     reached, for the first time in a generation Russian missiles 
     are not pointed at our cities or our citizens. We've greatly 
     reduced the lingering fear of an accidental nuclear launch. 
     We put into force the START I Treaty with Russia that will 
     eliminate from both our countries delivery systems that carry 
     more than 9,000 nuclear warheads--each with the capacity to 
     incinerate a city the size of Atlanta.
       START I, negotiated by two Republican administrations and 
     put into force by this Democratic administration, is the 
     first treaty that requires the nuclear powers actually to 
     reduce their strategic arsenal. Both our countries are 
     dismantling the weapons as fast as we can. And thanks to a 
     far-reaching verification system, including on-site 
     inspections which began in Russia and the United States 
     today, each of us knows exactly what the other is doing. 
     (Applause.)
       And, again, through the far-sighted program devised by 
     Senators Nunn and Lugar, we are helping Russia and the other 
     newly-independent states to eliminate nuclear forces in 
     transport, safeguard and destroy nuclear weapons and 
     materiel.
       Ironically, some of the changes that have allowed us to 
     reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons have made our 
     nonproliferation efforts harder. The breakup of the Soviet 
     Union left nuclear materials dispersed throughout the newly-
     independent states. The potential for theft of nuclear 
     materials, therefore, increased. We face the prospect of 
     organized criminals entering the nuclear smuggling business. 
     Add to this the volatile mix, the fact that a lump of 
     plutonium the size of a soda can is enough to build a bomb, 
     and the urgency of the effort to stop the spread of nuclear 
     materials should be clear to all of us.
       That's why from our first day in office we have launched an 
     aggressive, coordinated campaign against international 
     terrorism and nuclear smuggling. We are cooperating closely 
     with our allies, working with Russia and the other newly-
     independent states, improving security at nuclear facilities, 
     and strengthening multilateral export controls.
       One striking example of our success is Operation Sapphire, 
     the airlift of nearly 600 kilograms of highly-enriched 
     uranium--enough to make dozens of bombs from Kazakhstan to 
     the United States for disposal. We've also secured agreements 
     with Russia to reduce the uranium and plutonium available for 
     nuclear weapons, and we're seeking a global treaty banning 
     the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
       Our patient, determined diplomacy also succeeded in 
     convincing Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to sign the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty and give up the nuclear weapons left on 
     their territory when the Soviet Union dissolved. One of our 
     administration's top priorities was to assure that these new 
     countries would become non-nuclear nations, and now we are 
     also achieving that goal. (Applause.)
       Because of these efforts, four potential suppliers of 
     ballistic missiles--Russia, Ukraine, China and South Africa--
     have been agreed to control the transfer of these missiles 
     and related technology, pulling back from the nuclear 
     precipice has allowed us to cut United States defense 
     expenditures for strategic weapons by almost two-thirds, a 
     savings of about $20 billion a year, savings which can be 
     shifted to vital needs such as boosting the readiness of our 
     Armed Forces, reducing the deficit, putting more police on 
     our own streets. By spending millions to keep or take weapons 
     out of the hands of our potential adversaries, we are saving 
     billions in arms costs and putting it to better use.

[[Page S3373]]

       Now, in this year of decision, our ambition for the future 
     must be even more ambitious. If our people are to know real 
     lasting security, we have to redouble our arms control, 
     nonproliferation and antiterrorism efforts. We have to do 
     everything we can to avoid living with the 21st century 
     version of fallout shelters and duck-and-cover exercises to 
     prevent another World Trade Center tragedy.
       In just four days we mark the 25th anniversary of the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty. Nothing is more important to prevent 
     the spread of nuclear weapons than extending the treaty 
     indefinitely and unconditionally. And that's why I've asked 
     the Vice President to lead our delegation to the NPT 
     conference this April and to work as hard as we can to make 
     sure we succeed in getting that indefinite extension.
       The NPT is the principal reason why scores of nations do 
     not now possess nuclear weapons; why the doomsayers were 
     wrong. One hundred and seventy-two nations have made NPT the 
     most widely subscribed arms limitation treaty in history for 
     one overriding reason--it's in their self-interest to do so. 
     Non-nuclear weapon states that sign on to the treaty pledge 
     never to acquire them. Nuclear weapons states vow not to help 
     others obtain nuclear weapons, to facilitate the peaceful 
     uses of atomic energy and to pursue nuclear arms control and 
     disarmament--commitments I strongly reaffirm, along with our 
     determination to attain universal membership in the treaty.
       Failure to extend NPT indefinitely could open the door to a 
     world of nuclear trouble. Pariah nations with rigid 
     ideologies and expansionist ambitions would have an easier 
     time acquiring terrible weapons, and countries that have 
     chosen to forego the nuclear option would then rethink their 
     position; they would certainly be tempted to reconsider that 
     decision.
       To further demonstrate our commitment to the goals of the 
     treaty, today I have ordered that 200 tons of fissile 
     material, enough for thousands of nuclear weapons, be 
     permanently withdrawn from the United States nuclear 
     stockpile. (Applause.) Two hundred tons of fissile material 
     that will never again be used to build a nuclear weapon.
       A second key goal of ours is ratifying START II. Once in 
     effect, that treaty will eliminate delivery systems from 
     Russian and American arsenals that carry more than 5,000 
     weapons. The major reductions under START I, together with 
     START II, will enable us to reduce by two-thirds the number 
     of strategic warheads deployed at the height of the Cold War. 
     At my urging, the Senate has already begun hearings on START 
     II, and I am encouraged by the interest of the senators from 
     both parties in seeking quick action. I commend the Senate 
     for the action taken
      so far, and I urge again the approval of the treaty as soon 
     as possible.
       President Yeltsin and I have already instructed our experts 
     to begin considering the possibility after START II is 
     ratified of additional reductions and limitations on 
     remaining nuclear forces. We have a chance to further lift 
     the nuclear cloud, and we dare not miss it.
       To stop the development of new generations of nuclear 
     weapons, we must also quickly complete negotiations on a 
     comprehensive test ban treaty. Last month I extended a 
     nuclear testing moratorium that I put into effect when I took 
     office. And we revised our negotiating position to speed the 
     conclusion of the treaty while reaffirming our determination 
     to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile.
       We will also continue to work with our allies to fully 
     implement the agreement we reached with North Korea, first to 
     freeze, then do dismantle its nuclear program, all under 
     international monitoring. The critics of this agreement, I 
     believe, are wrong. The deal does stop North Korea's nuclear 
     program, and it does commit Pyongyang to roll it back in the 
     years to come.
       I have not heard another alternative proposal that isn't 
     either unworkable or foolhardy, or one that our allies in the 
     Republic of Korea and Japan, the nation's most directly 
     affected, would fail to support.
       If North Korea fulfills its commitment, the Korean 
     Peninsula and the entire world will clearly be less 
     threatened and more secure. The NPT, START II, the 
     Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the North Korean Agreement, 
     they top our agenda for the year ahead. [There are other 
     critical tasks we also face if we want to make every American 
     more secure, including winning Senate ratification of the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention, negotiating legally binding 
     measures to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons 
     Convention, clarifying the ABM Treaty so as to secure its 
     viability while permitting highly effective defenses against 
     theater missile attacks, continuing to support regional arms 
     control efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and pushing 
     for the ratification of conventional weapons which, among 
     other things, would help us to reduce the suffering caused by 
     the tens of millions of anti-personnel mines which are 
     plaguing millions of people all across this world.] 
     (Applause.)
       My friends, this is a full and challenging agenda. There 
     are many obstacles ahead. We cannot achieve it if we give 
     into a new isolationism. But I believe we can do no less than 
     make every effort to complete it.
       Tonight, let us remember what President Nixon told the 
     joint session of Congress when he returned from his historic 
     trip to Moscow in 1972. He said, ``We have begun to check the 
     wasteful and dangerous spiral of nuclear arms. Let us seize 
     the moment so that our children and the world's children can 
     live free of the fears and free of the hatreds that have been 
     the lot of mankind through the centuries.''
       Now it is within our power to realize the dream that 
     Richard Nixon described over 20 years ago. We cannot let 
     history record that our generation of Americans refused to 
     rise to this challenge, that we withdrew from the world and 
     abandoned our responsibilities when we knew better than to do 
     it, that we lacked the energy, the vision and the will to 
     carry this struggle forward--the age-old struggle between 
     hope and fear.
       So let us find inspiration in the great tradition of Harry 
     Truman and Arthur Vandenburg--a tradition that builds bridges 
     of cooperation, not walls of isolation; that opens the arms 
     of Americans to change instead of throwing up our hands in 
     despair; that casts aside partisanship and brings together 
     Republicans and Democrats for the good of the American people 
     and the world. That is the tradition that made the most of 
     this land, won the great battles of this century against 
     tyranny and secured our freedom and our prosperity.
       Above all, let's not forget that these efforts begin and 
     end with the American people. Every time we reduce the threat 
     that has hung over our heads since the dawn of the Nuclear 
     Age, we help to ensure that from the far stretches of the 
     Aleutians to the tip of the Florida Keys, the American people 
     are more secure. That is our most serious task and our most 
     solemn obligation.
       The challenge of this moment is matched only by its 
     possibility. So let us do our duty.
       Thank you very much. (Applause.)
       

                          ____________________